Clause 5.—(NOTIFICATION OF, AND OBJECTIONS TO, REGISTRATION.) (Hansard, 27 July 1965)

§ Mr. Buck
I beg to move, Amendment No. 13, Clause 5, in page 3, line 34, to leave out "of the registration" and to insert specified under subsection (6) of the last preceding section". Subsection (2) deals with the period during which objections to any matter which has been registered should be made. It provides that objection to any registration under Clause 4 may be made in such a period as will not be less than two years after the date of the registration, as may be prescribed. We touched on this point briefly in Committee.
The difficulty is that registration may take place, at any time, quite informally, and there will be a great variation in 378 the times when a person or a commoner or an alleged commoner seeks to register his claim. It is difficult for people to know the time within which they have to bring forward their objections. We therefore seek a more certain date, and the only certain date which appears to be available is that provided for in Clause 4(6)—the time which the Minister prescribes after which no longer shall registration be possible. This is a known time, which could be varied according to the type of right which is to be registered, and which is easily ascertainable.
How can a person who wishes to object to something being registered find out exactly how much time he has without going to the inspector and working it out in that way? It is much simpler to have a whole series of objections tied to a specific date which will be prescribed by the Minister under the provisions of Clause 4(6). I hope that the Minister thinks this right, will indicate so and will accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Skeffington
We very much sympathise with the purpose of the Amendment and we shall ensure that by the publicity and advertising at all levels we do all that we can in every way to bring home to all those who think they have any rights the period in which they must claim their rights or lodge their objections. That is fundamental to the success of this part of the Bill.
But there is a fundamental objection to doing what the hon. Member for Colchester (Mr. Buck) suggests, because it goes very much against the other exhortations which we have heard, particularly from the hon. Member for Cornwall, North (Mr. Scott-Hopkins) that we should get the Bill working as quickly as we can. The Amendment would make no registration certain from objection for five years, whereas under my right hon. Friend's proposals this would be the case in less than four years.
This matter would partly be dealt with in Regulations. May I recapitulate what was said? It was suggested that the registration period should be divided into two periods of 18 months, the first running from 1st January, 1967 to 30th June, 1968. We said that if this period could be started earlier we should do so but that we did not want to be unrealistic in suggesting that that could be done. The 379 second period would run from 1st July, 1968 to 31st December, 1969. After a month or two to allow the registration authority to tidy up the registration, there would be a period of two years for the objections. Those claims which will be registered in the first period—there will be no fee, which is an encouragement—could become final after the 18 months plus two years, which would mean that by the end of that period there would be the second period of registration, and at the end of the total period one would have established all possible claims and all objections.
10.45 p.m.
Under the Bill and the regulations as now proposed it will be possible for the majority of the things we want to see registered to be so registered within four years. Acceptance of the Amendment would mean that this could not be achieved in under five years. This would be a great loss. We appreciate the hon. Gentleman's point about objectors having every right and we agree that adequate publicity must be given to the matter.

§ Mr. Buck
Why have the Government chosen the date of registration rather than the date which will be prescribed under Clause 4(6)?

§ Mr. Skeffington
After consultation, this seemed to be the most convenient date.

§ Mr. Corfield
The point that worries me on this matter is that one might have a situation in which there is a running period, so to speak, for objections. In other words, one may have a claim to a right of common made by "A" very early in the period and the objection period will run out, say, two years after that date of registration. But later in that two-year period one may get a claim to a right made by "B", whose right cannot be settled because the objection period will run on further—yet the two rights, if they are relevant to the same common, may not be able to be sorted out by the commissioners unless the two are held together.
I am concerned lest we may have a situation in which, because of taking this date—producing, therefore, a running period, so to speak; the two years from 380 the date of each individual registration—someone who goes to all the trouble of objecting may be called back to give evidence in a later claim because another claim in respect of the same common is so interwoven that the two cannot be decided separately.
Despite the Parliamentary Secretary's laudible desire for speed, he may get himself into a situation in which the old adage, "More haste, less speed", will apply. I hope that he and his right hon. Friend will think about the matter further. If he cannot accept the Amendment or alter the Bill now, I imagine that something could be put into the regulations to ensure that the Commons Commissioners are able to deal with the problem I have raised, when it is likely that they will have to consider substantially the same issues on another claim relating to the same common.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I assure hon. Gentlemen opposite that my right hon. Friend will look at this point again. We have had a number of consultations with the interested bodies concerned and this point has not been put to us. Perhaps it is because of the rather late hour that I have not completely understood the point about another objection arising, as explained by the hon. Member for Gloucestershire, South (Mr. Corfield), but I assure him that we will look into the matter again after studying his remarks in the OFFICIAL REPORT. I can only add that, at present, we do not envisage any great difficulty.

§ Mr. Buck
It is with a heavy heart that, in due course, I shall ask the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment. I am tempted at this stage, in view of the totally unsatisfactory reply of the Parliamentary Secretary, to call out the troops, telephone White's and Boodle's and divide the House. That is tempting, particularly since the hon. Gentleman gave a most extraordinary answer. When I ask him why the Government had chosen as their linchpin the date of registration rather than the date to be prescribed in Clause 4(6), he merely replied that the date selected was more convenient, yet he gave no reason why it was more convenient. It seems to us more convenient to have the fixed date.
The Parliamentary Secretary spoke about publicity being given to the matter. 381 We agree with that. The publicity must be imaginative, but it will be difficult to publicise the individual dates of registration so that people will know exactly how long they have in which to lodge an objection. Despite the hon. Gentleman's unsatisfactory reply, I crave leave, reluctantly, to withdraw the Amendment.

Mr. Deputy-Speaker
The hon. Gentleman has, with a heavy heart, asked the leave of the House to withdraw the Amendment.

§ Mr. Scott-Hopkins
And I beg to move—with a light heart in the certain knowledge of what the Minister will do about it—Amendment No. 14, Clause 5, page 4, line 2, to leave out "or" and to insert "and to any person".
This point was discussed briefly in the Committee, when the Minister said that he would see whether there was a point of substance involved, as we firmly believe there is. Our intention is to make quite certain that if there should be, as there may well be, two claimants in the same registration claim, both shall be notified. I do not need to go into the various combinations one could have in this respect—I see the Minister nodding his head. I am sure that all my hon. Friends are extremely conversant with the position. We want to make quite certain that all concerned know just what is going on. I am sure the right hon. Gentleman does not want any ambiguity, or to be in a position later of having an incomplete Bill, leaving some people without knowledge of what is happening. I hope that the Minister will let sweet reasonableness prevail.

§ Mr. Skeffington
This will be a thoroughly satisfactory answer, because we propose to accept the Amendment. It carries out what has always been the intention, which we thought had been adequately provided for. The Amendment makes the intention absolutely clear by providing that objections shall be sent not only to applicants but to those who are noted but not necessarily registered. Many people may be interested in a particular claim; the first will be registered, and the rest will be notified. The intention is that all the objections shall be notified.

§ Mr. Corfield
I beg to move Amendment No. 15, Clause 5, page 4, line 6, to leave out from "made" to the second "the" and to insert "by a local authority".
This Amendment was originally tabled because I thought that in the Interpretation Act the words "any person" meant only ordinary persons and incorporated bodies. It has since been brought to my attention that it also covers unincorporated bodies. That, however, does not undermine the point of the Amendment because, as I understand it, subsection (5) is designed to provide that where registration is made other than on an application, one is concerned with the word "application." Presumably, it refers back to Clause 4(2), where a local authority, without having an application may effect a registration. If that be so, it seems to me that it can be done only by the local authority; and that the words "by a local authority" would be very much beta than the words "of any person." I still think that the Amendment is an improvement in terms both of clarity and of English.

§ Mr. Skeffington
I am sorry to have to slip back into unsatisfactory answers again. We have considerable sympathy with the point which has been made. As the hon. Member fairly said, "person" under Clause 19 of the Interpretation Act covers both incorporated and unincorporated bodies, but the only local authorities we are concerned with here are the registration authorities.
There are two cases where provision ought to be made for them to act. There is the case where they are requested to register common rights but the common has not been put on the register. There is the other case where, despite there being no application by anyone for registration of the common or green, the registration authority takes the view that that common or green should be on the register and it is in a position to deal with subsequent stages of procedure. Our advice is—and we have looked at this carefully—that the Amendment would throw a great deal of confusion on the wording of Clause 5 and might lead to doubt as to whether, or not registration authorities could hear objections if they were the applicant for registration.
383 For these reasons I must advise the House not to accept the Amendment.

§ Mr. Corfield
The hon. Member's advisers, like the ghost parson, seem to find doubts under their beds. It seems incredible that there should be any doubt about this, but it is not a matter on which we should spend a great deal of time. I therefore beg to ask leave to withdraw the Amendment.